[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkali Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2026
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17188
1 WP-7076-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 27th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 7076 of 2026
RAJKALI VERMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Sandhya Pandey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Atul Dwivedi - Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-
"(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of
mandamus to direct the respondents to pay for payment of
minimum of the pay scale since the date of their classification
19.09.2012 by the respondents. Accordingly Petitioner is entitled
to get minimum pay scale with arrears till dates 07.10.2016 as per
order passed in W.P. No. 12210/2017 (Chandrabhushan Dwivedi
Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh) in reference of case of
Ramnaresh Rawat Vs. Ashwani Devi and others reported (2017) 3
SCC 436; 2017(153) FLR 609, on behalf of her Husband, in the
interest of Justice.
(ii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court finds the Petitioner
entitled to be also granted.
(iii) Cost of the petition."
2) The counsel appearing for the State has brought to the notice of this
Court an order dated 18.12.2024, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Writ Petition No.39586 of 2024 (Chetan Lal Gupta and others vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) and it is submitted that the relief
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17188
2 WP-7076-2026
claimed by the petitioner cannot be extended to him in view of the aforesaid
order. The petitioner has already been extended the benefit of the policy
dated 07.10.2016 introduced by the State Government wherein three
categories have been formulated and respective pay scales have been granted
against those categories. The petitioner has chosen to get the benefit of the
policy dated 07.10.2016. Under these circumstances, the pay scale for which
he has been extended the benefit of policy dated 07.10.2016 is to be extended
to the petitioner. The petitioner cannot claim the benefit of minimum pay
scale in view of the law laid down in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat vs.
Ashwini Devi and others reported in (2017) 3 SCC 436 after extension of
benefits of policy dated 07.10.2016, but so far as claim of the petitioner with
respect to grant of arrears from the date of classification till the date when
the benefit of policy dated 07.10.2016 was extended to him, is concerned, the
petitioner is duly entitled in view of judgment passed in the case of Ram
Naresh Rawat (supra).
3) The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chetan Lal Gupta
(supra) has considered the aforesaid proposition and has held as under:-
". . . Although the government has issued a policy dated
07.10.2016 in which those daily wagers have been considered for
classification as permanent employees and categorised in different
categories as skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled, and different pay-
scales have been provided to them in their respective categories.
The scheme was formulated by the government for daily wagers,
who for some reason could not be regularised pursuant to the
direction issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary,
State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others (2006) 4
SCC 1 and therefore to grant them benefit, the scheme was
introduced. Although, it appears that the petitioners from the date
of categorisation on their respective categories, considering their
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17188
3 WP-7076-2026
nature of work became entitled to get the minimum of the pay-
scale of the post on which they were performing the duties alike
those classified as permanent employees but this misconception
has no standing. Although, certain orders have been passed by the
coordinate bench directing to grant the employees the benefit of
minimum of scale relying upon the law laid down by the High
Court in the case of Chandra Bhushan Prasad Dwivedi v. The
State of Madhya Pradesh passed in W.P.No.12210/2017 on
17.08.2017 and also relying upon the case of Ram Naresh Rawat
(supra). Indeed, what were the documents available before the
court, are not known to this court but with the available
documents, it is clear that the petitioners have been classified as
permanent employees under the Scheme dated 07.10.2016 and as
such they became entitled to get pay-scale of respective categories
under which they have been classified but earlier order dated
20.06.2011 does not provide them any entitlement to claim arrears
of minimum of scale. Even in the case of Chandra Bhushan Prasad
Dwivedi (supra) and also in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat
(supra), it is clear that the employees were classified as permanent
employees and therefore the benefit was granted to them to get the
minimum of the scale. The categorisation of the employees under
the specific category is only for the purpose to claim wages
prevailing at the relevant point of time of the said category, but not
the scale of the post on which they were working. Ergo, in the
considered opinion of this court, this petition is misconceived and
the claim raised by the petitioners is not sustainable. Albeit, it is
clarified that the petitioners will be entitled to get the benefit of
scheme dated 07.10.2016 and the order dated 31.12.2016
(Annexure-P/2) and they can also be granted the benefit of VII
Pay Commission, for which, they can raise their claim before the
authority and if that is so done, the authority shall consider and
pass an order as per their entitlement. Petition stands disposed of."
4) Under these circumstances, the petition is disposed of with a
direction to the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation to the
respondent No.2 regarding his claims with respect to arrears of classified
employees within a period of 10 days from today and in case such
representation is filed, the respondent No.2/Engineer-in-Chief, WRD, Bhopal
is directed to dwell upon the same and pass a self contained speaking order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17188
4 WP-7076-2026
in accordance with law and communicate the outcome to the petitioner
within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of such representation.
The authorities are also at liberty to examine the classification order of the
petitioner and also to examine that whether the order of classification is still
intact or not. If the petitioner is found entitled for the benefits as claimed by
him, the aforesaid benefits be also extended to him within the aforesaid
period.
5) No order as to costs.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
ac
